Glen,

I have no problem with licensing; I believe that in a business relationship, both vendor and customer need to trust each other, and deal with each other fairly. If the guitar company is *not* in compliance with their software licenses, then there is a case against them. As for applications like Office and Windows Server, etc. I think there is an enormous point of leverage for users of those tools; and the few hundred or thousand dollars per seat that is necessary as an initial investment is well spent.

With applications, what I object to is being forced to upgrade for little or no significant increase in functionality or value. This is the "software assurance" ploy...and it has left me unconvinced of its utility to anyone except Microsoft.

With development tools, the situation is no different.... both vendor and customer need to trust each other and deal with each other fairly.

Of course Microsoft can do whatever it wants. However, when the perceived value of the relationship between vendor and client steadily erodes, the client may begin looking elsewhere. If the customer has the feeling they are being treated unfairly, the trust erodes. If one side of a partnership believes they are not being dealt with fairly, there is a breach of trust.

If Ernie Ball Guitars dumped Microsoft because they wouldn't or couldn't live up to their license agreements, then that isn't Microsoft's fault, and Microsoft is certainly better off then if EB Guitars kept on using Microsoft software illegally.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Talk to me about licensing, though. That does gripe me to no end. The tools are great. I like the tools, but I hate having to worry about what I install on who's computer and whether or not our licensing covers it properly. Ernie Ball Guitars, locally, was hit for $90,000.00 from MS for not having proper software licensing. They since dumped MS products completely, I think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>